Hi Loa,
this looks like some kind of misunderstanding, probably due my
sloppiness with respect to formal and organizational requirements. I'm
really sorry for that. My everyday job keeps me busy enough with formal
requirements, associated tasks, and organizational thinking. Thus I
really appreciate that other people take care of all that at the IETF.
In other words, I don't in any way oppose a rechartering discussion. All
I wanted is to say: please let this WG keep going for a while, I really
think it's needed. And I think it's best done with exactly the group we
have right now.
If this needs refining or adding milestones, that's fine for me. If it
requires some rechartering, then ok, too. Just keep the group and allow
all the mentioned topics to be discussed here.
Best regards, Martin
Am 19.03.18 um 10:12 schrieb Loa Andersson:
Martin H,
On 2018-03-18 00:19, Martin Horneffer wrote:
Hello Bruno, Martin, Rob, and whole WG,
as with many bigger protocols that actually make their way into
production networks, I get the strong feeling that SPRING is not done
with the conclusion of the core documents. As the technology gets
closer to production use, unforeseen topics and issues appear that
need to be discussed and - in many cases - standardized. I do see the
need for documents of the "operators' requirements" style.
I take that you don't entirely agree with the "core documents almost
done" in the mail that Marin and Bruno sent starting up the
re-chartering discussion. I think I see your point and the things you
point at certainly needs to be addressed.
Sorry if I misunderstand what you are saying. I don't see the "not
completed" as a reason not take the discussion and actually recharter.
Working do this quite often, since more understanding of the area is
gained through the work done, but at the same time we also see a shift
in focus that we need to capture.
/Loa
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
